Which Class do you hate/dislike ?

[Humanophile]

I think that bards and clerics both have major problems with both implementation and style. To the point where you'd have to rebuild them anew as opposed to just tinkering to make them feel right to me.

Bards because, despite what everyone says about how bards can be, the mood they give off is very strictly foppish, and their abilities seem rather catch-as-catch-can. If anything, this would be a better style of spellcasting, as opposed to making this a class all of its own. As written, the flavor just seems... off.

Clerics are similar. Part of it is my deeply-held belief that any sort of supernatural recovery should come at a very real cost, part of it is my feeling that religion should be role-played differently, part of it is that gods and miracles should have a massively different feel to them, part of it is the sheer power-bribery that people think needs to be brought out so someone will play them, part of it is the way that D&D is designed so that you do need someone to play them, and part of it is the way that there's too little difference in rules and feel to clerics of vastly different dieties. I don't mind divine intervention in my games (although miracles on call at first level irk me), I don't mind healing (just healing at no real cost and that's taken for granted), and I think that religious characters can be very cool if played right (just not when your contemplative cleric to a god of peace and healing has to know how to wear heavy armor, but not necessarily anything about religion).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think you're all silly. ^_^

One of the first things I did as DM was say "Use the flavor as a guideline, but don't be limited by it."

Okay, maybe The Bard isn't a great adventuring role. Rename it something like "The Jack" and have him dabble in everything.

Singin' songs and doin' diddys in a dungeon? Fudge that! My character is bastion of arcane magics and capable of feats of roguery, and can fight decent. He's more a man who's had a little of everything, rather than some foppy limp-wristed singer.

Of course, if you want to play El Bardo as written, go for it. But realize that you don't HAVE to be the bard they describe. Distance the abilities from the flavor, and you've got a nice package that can fit anything. Use some DM guidelines, and you have a dude who works magic through force of personality that can heal and damage, control and manipulate. They become charmers and enchanters, sort of a Sorcerer Lite, a median between blowing things up with fireballs and hacking them to bits with well-placed sword blows, who can sneak around a bit, too.

Ditto with, I dunno, ANY class.

The Ranger? Pheh. Replace his spells with the Assassin's, and you've got a nasty little stealthy killer that's quite Ninja-esque (say, sneak attack progression instead of Two Weapon Fighting, to complete it)

Heck, keep it the way it is, and you've got some hunter-type.

Cleric? Pheh. These guys could be channelers of raw energy, vessels for the power who can shape it using special abilities, and focus it using spells. Of course, simply healing or dealing damage are the most useful.

Or they're a splinter of the College of Magic that focuses on healing magic. No mechanics adjustments needed.

Barbarians? Monks? Who says they can't belong? Monks become focusers of the enrgy of Law, and Barbarians of Chaos, for instance. Chaos just doesn't lend itself well to reading ordered words, is all, so your brain can't understand it.

Okay, the above examples aren't the best. But, dude, don't stay too attatched to the flavor of the class.

Watered down to bare abilities, Bards are simply Jacks Of All Trades. Clerics are simply Healers. Wizards are simply human artilery, and Sorcerers become bionic humans. Rangers can be assassin-ninjas and paladins can be knights of the round table. Monks become the town guard, Barbarians the leaders of le revolution!

Sorry. But it surprises me how many people get peeved over the flavor of some classes. Dude, you're the DM. Fruck the flavor! And if you're the player, it shouldn't be too hard to get what you want, if you think it out well enough. DM's are supposed to be able to handle things like rules changes.

Anyhoo. End rant.

 

[rounser]

Rangers can be assassin-ninjas

Oooh! ooh!

Can they be assassin-ninja-pirates?

 

[Corinth]

For me, it's the monk. It has no place in the default Western medieval fantasy paradigm, and that is clearly what D&D is and does.

 

[rounser]

We-ell....here's an old idea to justify it; suppose you made one of the demihuman cultures oriental-like - I think it would be especially appropriate for the elves. Elven martial arts, samurai and eastern philosophy would give them a meaningfully different culture from occidental medieval humans. Throw in viking dwarves, egyptian halflings, aztec orcs and indian gnomes, and you could have quite an interesting historically-inspired fantasy setting on your hands.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

My two choices: monks and druids.

Monks because while I've seen some effective monk, usually when I play in or judge a party with a monk it's another episode of "oh, goodie, here's a character who's going to sit around and do absolutely nothing other than survive (and maybe not event that." Monks seem to be the king of "take one level for saves and evasion" then take x levels of y and then take duelist so you can have a good AC and saves and get killed last. Plus people seem to want to play Kwai Chan Kain or whatever his name was and it gets annoying after a while.

Druids because I'm tired of seeing yet another angry avenger of nature who's out to kill people for tacking signs to trees and threatens to kill the guards and ruin their crops when he's told that his panthers can't come into the city. I don't like ecoterrorists in real life, why do they have to intrude on my gaming too? (Now, I could see the class being pretty neat if it were played as Merlin rather than some discount rack Unabomber.)

Bards and the whole perfumed foppery thing nearly got the nod as well but I've seen quite a few bards that were effective and helpful to the party. . . .

 

[der_kluge]

I hate the Bard class mostly. (see my thread entitled "am I a powergamer?" for more info on that)

The Bard is NOT a Jack-of-all-trades. It's very narrow in its definition and is designed to be a "dump all your points in charisma and take lots of enchantment spells, and Bluff and Diplomacy ranks" - period. You have no choice in this matter. The class is weak, awkward, and clumsy, and is probably better served by other alternatives.

The Druid was another that I voted for, and my problem is similar to the problem Wulfen Priest has with Monks. They are typically loners, and always are on the fringe of a party. They typically never want to enter town, so if you had a Bard and a Druid in the party, you're in for some real problem. The class also makes no sense from a medieval standpoint.

The Monk was the third that I voted for. My argument stems from the medieval standpoint, but others make a good case against them based on the role-playing stance people generally take with them, and I agree with that.

 

[Mahiro Satsu]

Kamikaze Midget - I am impressed with your insight.

However in its present form DnD3ed, specifically Grayhawk (aka the player's handbook), is based off of midevil European/Mediteranian cultures, so IMO monk does not belong, but the barbarian certainly does.

Think of the Germanic hordes that feudalism was designed to repel, they, to the peoples of central/southern europe, were savages. As were the vikings.

Bards on the other hand arent so stupid. They might have done better as a prestige class (see Wheel of Time's Gleeman, or DnD 1st), but i think they dont look so floppish if you imagine and elf singing magical songs ala Tom Bombadil in lord of the rings. Plus their skill packages do come in handy. I mean how many rangers or barbarians do well in cities, or how well do wizards do outside their peers? They need people skills.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I hate the Sorcerer most of all. I don't get the D&D feel from that class, I wonder why they felt it necessary to put him in when they already have the Wizard? Add the art they have of the sorcerer in the PHB and you ahve something I despise. I voted Bard though to avoid slamming the MU.

 

[der_kluge]

STR 18/100

Flexor, you need to update your stats to 3rd edition!